Pest categorisation of arrhenodes minutus

(1)

ADOPTED: 31 January 2019 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5617

Pest categorisation of Arrhenodes minutus

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (EFSA PLH Panel),

Claude Bragard, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Francesco Di Serio, Paolo Gonthier,

Marie-Agnes Jacques, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Annemarie Fejer Justesen, Alan MacLeod,

Christer Sven Magnusson, Juan A Navas-Cortes, Stephen Parnell, Roel Potting,

Philippe Lucien Reignault, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent Civera,

Jonathan Yuen, Lucia Zappala, Jean-Claude Gregoire, Virag Kertesz and Panagiotis Milonas

Abstract

The Panel on Plant Health performed a pest categorisation of Arrhenodes minutus, a well-de_fined wood-boring insect species in the family Brentidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). It can be identi_{fied using} taxonomic keys. A. minutus is only present in southern Canada and eastern USA down to Florida. The main host plants of A. minutus are species of the genera Quercus, Ulmus, Fagus and Populus. The pest larvae bore galleries in the wood, causing structural damage to the timber. The pest is also a vector of the quarantine pest Breziella (Ceratocystis) fagacearum. A. minutus most often lays its eggs in wounded parts of the trees where sap is oozing. The female bores minute holes with her snout and deposits one egg in each of them. The larvae bore a straight gallery against the grain. When the gallery nearly reaches the other side of the bole, it makes a sharp U-turn towards the point of origin. These galleries cause structural damage to the timber. The life cycle lasts generally 3 years, but some individuals develop in 2 years and a few require 4 years. The main pathways are wood and possibly plants for planting. Specific phytosanitary requirements exist for Quercus and Populus only, while Ulmus is regulated in relation to other pests. Establishment would be favoured by the wide distribution of host trees in the EU territory and by climatic conditions locally comparable to those of the pest’s native range. A. minutus meets all the criteria assessed by EFSA for consideration as potential Union quarantine pest. The criteria for considering it as a potential Union regulated non-quarantine pest are not met since the species is absent from the EU.

Keywords: Breziella fagacearum, European Union, oak timberworm, pest risk, plant health, plant pest, quarantine

Requestor: European Commission Question number: EFSA-Q-2018-00793 Correspondence: alpha@efsa.europa.eu

(2)

Panel members: Claude Bragard, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Francesco Di Serio, Paolo Gonthier, Marie-Agnes Jacques, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Annemarie Fejer Justesen, Alan MacLeod, Christer Sven Magnusson, Panagiotis Milonas, Juan A Navas-Cortes, Stephen Parnell, Roel Potting, Philippe L Reignault, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent, Jonathan Yuen, Lucia Zappala. Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to acknowledge all European competent institutions, Member State bodies and other organisations that provided data for this scientiﬁc output.

Suggested citation: EFSA Plant Health Panel (EFSA PLH Panel), Bragard C, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Di Serio F, Gonthier P, Jacques M-A, Jaques Miret JA, Fejer Justesen A, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Navas-Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Reignault PL, Thulke H-H, Van der Werf W, Vicent Civera A, Yuen J, Zappala L, Gregoire J-C, Kertesz V and Milonas P, 2019. Scientiﬁc opinion on the pest categorisation of Arrhenodes minutus. EFSA Journal 2019;17(2):5617, 26 pp.https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5617 ISSN: 1831-4732

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modiﬁcations or adaptations are made.

Reproduction of the images listed below is prohibited and permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder:

Figure 1: © GBIF

Figure 2: © European Union. Reuse is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged

The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food Safety Authority, an agency of the European Union.

(3)

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor

1.1.1. Background

Council Directive 2000/29/EC1on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community establishes the present European Union plant health regime. The Directive lays down the phytosanitary provisions and the control checks to be carried out at the place of origin on plants and plant products destined for the Union or to be moved within the Union. In the Directive’s 2000/29/EC annexes, the list of harmful organisms (pests) whose introduction into or spread within the Union is prohibited, is detailed together with speciﬁc requirements for import or internal movement.

Following the evaluation of the plant health regime, the new basic plant health law, Regulation (EU) 2016/20312on protective measures against pests of plants, was adopted on 26 October 2016 and will apply from 14 December 2019 onwards, repealing Directive 2000/29/EC. In line with the principles of the above mentioned legislation and the follow-up work of the secondary legislation for the listing of EU regulated pests, EFSA is requested to provide pest categorizations of the harmful organisms included in the annexes of Directive 2000/29/EC, in the cases where recent pest risk assessment/pest categorisation is not available.

1.1.2. Terms of reference

EFSA is requested, pursuant to Article 22(5.b) and Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/20023, to provide scientiﬁc opinion in the ﬁeld of plant health.

EFSA is requested to prepare and deliver a pest categorisation (step 1 analysis) for each of the regulated pests included in the appendices of the annex to this mandate. The methodology and template of pest categorisation have already been developed in past mandates for the organisms listed in Annex II Part A Section II of Directive 2000/29/EC. The same methodology and outcome is expected for this work as well.

The list of the harmful organisms included in the annex to this mandate comprises 133 harmful organisms or groups. A pest categorisation is expected for these 133 pests or groups and the delivery of the work would be stepwise at regular intervals through the year as detailed below. First priority covers the harmful organisms included in Appendix 1, comprising pests from Annex II Part A Section I and Annex II Part B of Directive 2000/29/EC. The delivery of all pest categorisations for the pests included in Appendix 1 is June 2018. The second priority is the pests included in Appendix 2, comprising the group of Cicadellidae (non-EU) known to be vector of Pierce_{’s disease (caused by Xylella fastidiosa), the group} of Tephritidae (non-EU), the group of potato viruses and virus-like organisms, the group of viruses and virus-like organisms of Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L., Rubus L. and Vitis L.. and the group of Margarodes (non-EU species). The delivery of all pest categorisations for the pests included in Appendix 2 is end 2019. The pests included in Appendix 3 cover pests of Annex I part A section I and all pests categorisations should be delivered by end 2020.

For the above mentioned groups, each covering a large number of pests, the pest categorisation will be performed for the group and not the individual harmful organisms listed under “such as” notation in the Annexes of the Directive 2000/29/EC. The criteria to be taken particularly under consideration for these cases, is the analysis of host pest combination, investigation of pathways, the damages occurring and the relevant impact.

Finally, as indicated in the text above, all references to ‘non-European’ should be avoided and replaced by ‘non-EU’ and refer to all territories with exception of the Union territories as deﬁned in Article 1 point 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031.

1 _{Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms}

harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community. OJ L 169/1, 10.7.2000, p. 1–112.

2 _{Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council of 26 October 2016 on protective measures against}

pests of plants. OJ L 317, 23.11.2016, p. 4–104.

3

Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. OJ L 31/1, 1.2.2002, p. 1–24.

(5)

1.1.2.1. Terms of Reference: Appendix 1

List of harmful organisms for which pest categorisation is requested. The list below follows the annexes of Directive 2000/29/EC.

Annex IIAI

(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development

Aleurocantus spp. Numonia pyrivorella (Matsumura)

Anthonomus bisignifer (Schenkling) Oligonychus perditus Pritchard and Baker Anthonomus signatus (Say) Pissodes spp. (non-EU)

Aschistonyx eppoi Inouye Scirtothrips aurantii Faure Carposina niponensis Walsingham Scirtothrips citri (Moultex) Enarmonia packardi (Zeller) Scolytidae spp. (non-EU)

Enarmonia prunivora Walsh Scrobipalpopsis solanivora Povolny Grapholita inopinata Heinrich Tachypterellus quadrigibbus Say Hishomonus phycitis Toxoptera citricida Kirk.

Leucaspis japonica Ckll. Unaspis citri Comstock Listronotus bonariensis (Kuschel)

(b) Bacteria

Citrus variegated chlorosis Xanthomonas campestris pv. oryzae (Ishiyama) Dye and pv. oryzicola (Fang. et al.) Dye Erwinia stewartii (Smith) Dye

(c) Fungi

Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler (non-EU pathogenic isolates)

Elsinoe spp. Bitanc. and Jenk. Mendes

Anisogramma anomala (Peck) E. M€uller Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. albedinis (Kilian andMaire) Gordon Apiosporina morbosa (Schwein.) v. Arx Guignardia piricola (Nosa) Yamamoto

Ceratocystis virescens (Davidson) Moreau Puccinia pittieriana Hennings Cercoseptoria pini-densiﬂorae (Hori and Nambu)

Deighton

Stegophora ulmea (Schweinitz: Fries) Sydow & Sydow

Cercospora angolensis Carv. and Mendes Venturia nashicola Tanaka and Yamamoto (d) Virus and virus-like organisms

Beet curly top virus (non-EU isolates) Little cherry pathogen (non- EU isolates) Black raspberry latent virus Naturally spreading psorosis

Blight and blight-like Palm lethal yellowing mycoplasm Cadang-Cadang viroid Satsuma dwarf virus

Citrus tristeza virus (non-EU isolates) Tatter leaf virus

Leprosis Witches’ broom (MLO)

Annex IIB

(a) Insect mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development Anthonomus grandis (Boh.) Ips cembrae Heer Cephalcia lariciphila (Klug) Ips duplicatus Sahlberg Dendroctonus micans Kugelan Ips sexdentatus B€orner Gilphinia hercyniae (Hartig) Ips typographus Heer

Gonipterus scutellatus Gyll. Sternochetus mangiferae Fabricius Ips amitinus Eichhof

(6)

(b) Bacteria

Curtobacteriumﬂaccumfaciens pv. ﬂaccumfaciens (Hedges) Collins and Jones

(c) Fungi

Glomerella gossypii Edgerton Hypoxylon mammatum (Wahl.) J. Miller Gremmeniella abietina (Lag.) Morelet

List of harmful organisms for which pest categorisation is requested per group. The list below follows the categorisation included in the annexes of Directive 2000/29/EC.

Annex IAI

Group of Cicadellidae (non-EU) known to be vector of Pierce’s disease (caused by Xylella fastidiosa), such as: 1) Carneocephala fulgida Nottingham 3) Graphocephala atropunctata (Signoret) 2) Draeculacephala minerva Ball

Group of Tephritidae (non-EU) such as:

1) Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) 12) Pardalaspis cyanescens Bezzi 2) Anastrepha ludens (Loew) 13) Pardalaspis quinaria Bezzi 3) Anastrepha obliqua Macquart 14) Pterandrus rosa (Karsch) 4) Anastrepha suspensa (Loew) 15) Rhacochlaena japonica Ito 5) Dacus ciliatus Loew 16) Rhagoletis completa Cresson 6) Dacus curcurbitae Coquillet 17) Rhagoletis fausta (Osten-Sacken) 7) Dacus dorsalis Hendel 18) Rhagoletis indifferens Curran 8) Dacus tryoni (Froggatt) 19) Rhagoletis mendax Curran 9) Dacus tsuneonis Miyake 20) Rhagoletis pomonella Walsh 10) Dacus zonatus Saund. 21) Rhagoletis suavis (Loew) 11) Epochra canadensis (Loew)

(c) Viruses and virus-like organisms

Group of potato viruses and virus-like organisms such as:

1) Andean potato latent virus 5) Potato virus T 2) Andean potato mottle virus

3) Arracacha virus B, oca strain 4) Potato black ringspot virus

6) non-EU isolates of potato viruses A, M, S, V, X and Y (including Yo, Yn and Yc) and Potato l eafroll virus

Group of viruses and virus-like organisms of Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L., Rubus L. and Vitis L., such as:

1) Blueberry leaf mottle virus 8) Peach yellows mycoplasm

2) Cherry rasp leaf virus (American) 9) Plum line pattern virus (American) 3) Peach mosaic virus (American) 10) Raspberry leaf curl virus (American) 4) Peach phony rickettsia 11) Strawberry witches’ broom mycoplasma 5) Peach rosette mosaic virus 12) Non-EU viruses and virus-like organisms of

Cydonia Mill., Fragaria L., Malus Mill., Prunus L., Pyrus L., Ribes L., Rubus L. and Vitis L.

6) Peach rosette mycoplasm 7) Peach X-disease mycoplasm

(7)

Annex IIAI

(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development Group of Margarodes (non-EU species) such as:

1) Margarodes vitis (Phillipi) 3) Margarodes prieskaensis Jakubski 2) Margarodes vredendalensis de Klerk

List of harmful organisms for which pest categorisation is requested. The list below follows the annexes of Directive 2000/29/EC.

Annex IAI

Acleris spp. (non-EU) Longidorus diadecturus Eveleigh and Allen Amauromyza maculosa (Malloch) Monochamus spp. (non-EU)

Anomala orientalis Waterhouse Myndus crudus Van Duzee

Arrhenodes minutus Drury Nacobbus aberrans (Thorne) Thorne and Allen Choristoneura spp. (non-EU) Naupactus leucoloma Boheman

Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) Premnotrypes spp. (non-EU)

Dendrolimus sibiricus Tschetverikov Pseudopityophthorus minutissimus (Zimmermann) Diabrotica barberi Smith and Lawrence Pseudopityophthorus pruinosus (Eichhoff)

Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi Barber Scaphoideus luteolus (Van Duzee) Diabrotica undecimpunctata undecimpunctata

Mannerheim

Spodoptera eridania (Cramer) Diabrotica virgifera zeae Krysan & Smith

Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) Diaphorina citri Kuway

Spodoptera litura (Fabricus) Heliothis zea (Boddie)

Thrips palmi Karny Hirschmanniella spp., other than Hirschmanniella

gracilis (de Man) Luc and Goodey

Xiphinema americanum Cobb sensu lato (non-EU populations)

Liriomyza sativae Blanchard

Xiphinema californicum Lamberti and Bleve-Zacheo

(b) Fungi

Ceratocystis fagacearum (Bretz) Hunt Mycosphaerella larici-leptolepis Ito et al. Chrysomyxa arctostaphyli Dietel Mycosphaerella populorum G. E. Thompson Cronartium spp. (non-EU) Phoma andina Turkensteen

Endocronartium spp. (non-EU) Phyllosticta solitaria Ell. and Ev.

Guignardia laricina (Saw.) Yamamoto and Ito Septoria lycopersici Speg. var. malagutii Ciccarone and Boerema

Gymnosporangium spp. (non-EU)

Thecaphora solani Barrus Inonotus weirii (Murril) Kotlaba and Pouzar

Trechispora brinkmannii (Bresad.) Rogers Melampsora farlowii (Arthur) Davis

(c) Viruses and virus-like organisms

Tobacco ringspot virus Pepper mild tigre virus Tomato ringspot virus Squash leaf curl virus Bean golden mosaic virus Euphorbia mosaic virus Cowpea mild mottle virus Florida tomato virus Lettuce infectious yellows virus

(8)

(d) Parasitic plants Arceuthobium spp. (non-EU) Annex IAII

Meloidogyne fallax Karssen Rhizoecus hibisci Kawai and Takagi Popillia japonica Newman

(b) Bacteria

Clavibacter michiganensis (Smith) Davis et al. ssp. sepedonicus (Spieckermann and Kotthoff) Davis et al.

Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al.

(c) Fungi

Melampsora medusae Th€umen Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilbersky) Percival Annex I B

(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say Liriomyza bryoniae (Kaltenbach) (b) Viruses and virus-like organisms

Beet necrotic yellow vein virus

1.2. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference

Arrhenodes minutus is one of a number of pests listed in the Appendices to the Terms of Reference (ToR) to be subject to pest categorisation to determine whether it fulﬁls the criteria of a quarantine pest or those of a regulated non-quarantine pest (RNQP) for the area of the EU excluding Ceuta, Melilla and the outermost regions of Member States (MS) referred to in Article 355(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), other than Madeira and the Azores.

2. Data and methodologies

2.1. Data

2.1.1. Literature search

A literature search on A. minutus was conducted at the beginning of the categorisation in the ISI Web of Science bibliographic database, using the scientiﬁc name of the pest as search term. Relevant papers were reviewed and further references and information were obtained from experts, as well as from citations within the references and grey literature.

2.1.2. Database search

Pest information, on host(s) and distribution, was retrieved from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and relevant publications.

The Europhyt database was consulted for pest-specific notifications on interceptions and outbreaks. Europhyt is a web-based network run by the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) of the European Commission, and is a subproject of PHYSAN (Phyto-Sanitary Controls) specifically concerned with plant health information. The Europhyt database manages notifications of interceptions of plants or plant products that do not comply with EU legislation, as well as notifications of plant pests detected in the territory of the MS and the phytosanitary measures taken to eradicate or avoid their spread.

(9)

2.2. Methodologies

The Panel performed the pest categorisation for A. minutus, following guiding principles and steps presented in the EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018a,b) and in the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No 11 (FAO, 2013) and No 21 (FAO, 2004).

This work was initiated following an evaluation of the EU plant health regime. Therefore, to facilitate the decision-making process, in the conclusions of the pest categorisation, the Panel addresses explicitly each criterion for a Union quarantine pest and for a Union RNQP in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants, and includes additional information required in accordance with the speciﬁc terms of reference received by the European Commission. In addition, for each conclusion, the Panel provides a short description of its associated uncertainty.

Table1 presents the Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 pest categorisation criteria on which the Panel bases its conclusions. All relevant criteria have to be met for the pest to potentially qualify either as a quarantine pest or as a RNQP. If one of the criteria is not met, the pest will not qualify. A pest that does not qualify as a quarantine pest may still qualify as a RNQP that needs to be addressed in the opinion. For the pests regulated in the protected zones only, the scope of the categorisation is the territory of the protected zone; thus, the criteria refer to the protected zone instead of the EU territory. It should be noted that the Panel_{’s conclusions are formulated respecting its remit and particularly} with regard to the principle of separation between risk assessment and risk management (EFSA founding regulation (EU) No 178/2002); therefore, instead of determining whether the pest is likely to have an unacceptable impact, the Panel will present a summary of the observed pest impacts. Economic impacts are expressed in terms of yield and quality losses and not in monetary terms, whereas addressing social impacts is outside the remit of the Panel.

Table 1: Pest categorisation criteria under evaluation, as deﬁned in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in theﬁrst column)

Criterion of pest categorisation Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest

Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding protected zone quarantine pest (articles 32–35) Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union regulated non-quarantine pest Identity of the pest (Section3.1)

Is the identity of the pest established, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible?

Is the identity of the pest established, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible? Absence/ presence of the pest in the EU territory (Section3.2)

Is the pest present in the EU territory?If present, is the pest widely

distributed within the EU? Describe the pest distribution brieﬂy!

Is the pest present in the EU territory? If not, it cannot be a protected zone quarantine organism

Is the pest present in the EU territory? If not, it cannot be a regulated non-quarantine pest. (A regulated non-quarantine pest must be present in the risk assessment area) Regulatory

status (Section3.3)

If the pest is present in the EU but not widely distributed in the risk assessment area, it should be under ofﬁcial control or expected to be under ofﬁcial control in the near future

The protected zone system aligns with the pest free area system under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) The pest satisﬁes the IPPC deﬁnition of a quarantine pest that is not present in the risk assessment area (i.e. protected zone)

Is the pest regulated as a quarantine pest? If currently regulated as a quarantine pest, are there grounds to consider its status could be revoked?

(10)

The Panel will not indicate in its conclusions of the pest categorisation whether to continue the risk assessment process, but following the agreed two-step approach, will continue only if requested by the risk managers. However, during the categorisation process, experts may identify key elements and knowledge gaps that could contribute signi_{ficant uncertainty to a future assessment of risk. It would} be useful to identify and highlight such gaps so that potential future requests can specifically target the major elements of uncertainty, perhaps suggesting specific scenarios to examine.

3. Pest categorisation

3.1. Identity and biology of the pest

3.1.1. Identity and taxonomy

Criterion of pest categorisation Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest

Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding protected zone quarantine pest (articles 32–35) Criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union regulated non-quarantine pest Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory (Section3.4)

Is the pest able to enter into, become established in, and spread within, the EU territory? If yes, brieﬂy list the pathways!

Is the pest able to enter into, become established in, and spread within, the protected zone areas? Is entry by natural spread from EU areas where the pest is present possible?

Is spread mainly via speciﬁc plants for planting, rather than via natural spread or via movement of plant products or other objects?

Clearly state if plants for planting is the main pathway!

Potential for consequences in the EU territory (Section3.5)

Would the pests’ introduction have an economic or

environmental impact on the EU territory?

Would the pests’ introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the protected zone areas?

Does the presence of the pest on plants for planting have an economic impact, as regards the intended use of those plants for planting? Available

measures (Section3.6)

Are there measures available to prevent the entry into, establishment within or spread of the pest within the EU such that the risk becomes mitigated?

Are there measures available to prevent the entry into,

establishment within or spread of the pest within the protected zone areas such that the risk becomes mitigated?

Is it possible to eradicate the pest in a restricted area within 24 months (or a period longer than 24 months where the biology of the organism so justiﬁes) after the presence of the pest was

conﬁrmed in the protected zone?

Are there measures available to prevent pest presence on plants for planting such that the risk becomes mitigated?

Conclusion of pest

categorisation (Section4)

A statement as to whether (1) all criteria assessed by EFSA above for

consideration as a potential quarantine pest were met and (2) if not, which one(s) were not met

A statement as to whether (1) all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as potential protected zone quarantine pest were met, and (2) if not, which one(s) were not met

A statement as to whether (1) all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a potential regulated non-quarantine pest were met, and (2) if not, which one(s) were not met

Is the identity of the pest established, or has it been shown to produce consistent symptoms and to be transmissible?

Yes, Arrhenodes minutus is a clearly deﬁned insect species in the order Coleoptera, family Brentidae.4

4 _{The family Brentidae is sometimes spelled}_{‘Brenthidae’, e.g. in Arnett (1968) and Arnett et al. (2002). In this opinion, we}

(11)

Arrhenodes minutus (Drury) is an insect of the family Brentidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). It has been described by Arnett (1968) who provides a taxonomic key to A. minutus in North America. The adult beetles are 7–25 mm long, the males being distinctly larger than the females. The body is shiny, elongated, reddish brown to almost black with yellow spots on the elytrae. The females have long and slender snouts, while the males show broad and ﬂattened mandibles. The larvae are 12–24 mm long when fully grown, with a white, cylindrical body, three pairs of thoracic legs and one pair of prolegs at the end of their abdomen.

3.1.2. Biology of the pest

Some information is presented by Buchanan (1960), Sanborne (1983) and Solomon (1995). The adults are present from early May to August. They feed on sap oozing from the trees and have been observed to aggregate sometimes under loose bark at wounds. Oviposition occurs mostly at fresh wounds. The females chew minute holes with their snout in large wood vessels, depositing one egg in each hole, which is then often plugged with frass and a sticky secretion. In Ontario, Sanborne (1983) observed two periods of oviposition, from mid-June to late July and from early to mid-September. Newly hatched larvae bore directly into the wood, straight across the grain, and expel frass and sawdust through the oviposition hole at the beginning of their gallery. The diameter of the galleries increases as the larvae grow. The galleries almost reach the opposite side of the tree, and then make a sharp U-turn toward the entrances. Pupation occurs near the gallery’s entry, from which the adult will emerge. In Missouri the life cycle is generally 3 years, but some individuals develop in 2 years and a few require 4 years (Buchanan, 1960).

3.1.3. Intraspeci

ﬁc diversity

There is no mention of intraspeciﬁc diversity in the scarce literature available.

3.1.4. Detection and identi

ﬁcation of the pest

A taxonomic key is provided for identiﬁcation by Arnett (1968). Useful drawings of the adults can also be found in Sanborne (1983) and Thomas (1996).

The pest can be detected by its galleries which start with a minute oviposition hole often located at wounds where sap is oozing from the wood. When the larvae grow, they expel their frass through their gallery’s entrance. In sawn wood, the galleries can be seen to go straight across the grain through the boles and then back.

3.2. Pest distribution

3.2.1. Pest distribution outside the EU

Arrhenodes minutus is present in Southern Canada and Eastern USA down to Florida (Thomas, 1996) (Figure 1).

Are detection and identiﬁcation methods available for the pest?

Yes, the gallery appearance allows the detection of the pest. A description of the adult and larval morphology is provided by Arnett (1968).

(12)

3.2.2. Pest distribution in the EU

3.3. Regulatory status

3.3.1. Council Directive 2000/29/EC

Arrhenodes minutus is listed in Council Directive 2000/29/EC. Details are presented in Tables2and3. Figure 1: Distribution of Arrhenodes minutus based on GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility)

data (GBIF, online; accessed on 6 December 2018)

Is the pest present in the EU territory? If present, is the pest widely distributed within the EU? No, Arrhenodes minutus has not been reported from the EU.

Table 2: Arrhenodes minutus in Council Directive 2000/29/EC

Annex I, Part A

Harmful organisms whose introduction into, and spread within, all member states shall be banned

Section I Harmful organisms not known to occur in any part of the community and relevant for the entire community

(a) Insects, mites and nematodes, at all stages of their development Species

(13)

3.3.2. Legislation addressing the hosts of Arrhenodes minutus

Arrhenodes minutus is listed on Annex IAI, therefore its introduction into, and spread within, the EU is banned on all plant genera and commodities.

Table 3: Regulated hosts and commodities that may involve Arrhenodes minutus in Annexes III, IV and V of Council Directive 2000/29/EC

Annex III, Part A

Plants, plant products and other objects the introduction of which shall be prohibited in all Member States

Description Country of origin

2. Plants of [. . .] Quercus L., with leaves, other than fruit and seeds

Non-European countries

3. Plants of Populus L., with leaves, other than fruit and seeds

North American countries

Annex IV, Part A

Special requirements which shall be laid down by all member states for the introduction and movement of plants, plant products and other objects into and within all member states

Section I Plants, plant products and other objects originating outside the community Plants, plant products and other objects Special requirements

3. Wood of Quercus L., other than in the form of: — chips, particles, sawdust, shavings, wood waste and scrap,

— casks, barrels, vats, tubs and other coopers’ products and parts thereof, of wood, including staves where there is documented evidence that the wood has been produced or manufactured using heat treatment to achieve a minimum temperature of 176°C for 20 minutes

— Wood packaging material, in the form of packing cases, boxes, crates, drums and similar packings, pallets, box pallets and other load boards, pallet collars, dunnage, whether or not actually in use in the transport of objects of all kinds, except dunnage supporting consignments of wood, which is constructed from wood of the same type and quality as the wood in the consignment and which meets the same Union phytosanitary requirements as the wood in the consignment,

but including wood which has not kept its natural round surface, originating in the USA.

Ofﬁcial statement that the wood:

(a) is squared so as to remove entirely the rounded surface,

or

(b) is bark-free and the water content is less than 20% expressed as a percentage of the dry matter, or

(c) is bark-free and has been disinfected by an appropriate hot-air or hot water treatment,

or

(d) if sawn, with or without residual bark attached, has undergone kiln-drying to below 20% moisture content, expressed as a percentage of dry matter, achieved through an appropriate time/temperature schedule. There shall be evidence thereof by a mark‘Kiln-dried’ or ‘KD’ or another internationally recognised mark, put on the wood or on any wrapping in accordance with current usage.

7.2. Whether or not listed among the CN codes in Annex V, Part B, wood in the form of chips, particles, sawdust, shavings, wood waste and scrap and obtained in whole or part from Quercus L. originating in the USA.

Ofﬁcial statement that the wood:

(a) has undergone kiln-drying to below 20% moisture content, expressed as a percentage of dry matter achieved through an appropriate time/ temperature schedule, or

(b) has undergone an appropriate

fumigation to a speciﬁcation approved in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 18.2. There shall be evidence of the fumigation by indicating on the certiﬁcates referred to in Article 13.1.(ii),

(14)

the active ingredient, the minimum wood temperature, the rate (g/m 3) and the exposure time (h),

or

(b) has undergone an appropriate heat treatment to achieve a minimum temperature of 56°C for a minimum duration of 30 continuous minutes throughout the entire proﬁle of the wood (including at its core), the latter to be indicated on the certiﬁcates

referred to in Article 13.1.(ii). 11.01. Plants of Quercus L., other than

fruit and seeds, originating in the USA

Without prejudice to the provisions applicable to the plants listed in Annex III(A)(2), ofﬁcial statement that the plants originate in areas known to be free from Ceratocystis fagacearum (Bretz) Hunt.

Annex V Plants, plant products and other objects which must be subject to a plant health inspection (at the place of production if originating in the Community, before being moved within the Community—in the country of origin or the consignor country, if originating outside the Community) before being permitted to enter the Community Part A Plants, plant products and other objects originating in the Community

Section I Plants, plant products and other objects which are potential carriers of harmful organisms of relevance for the entire Community and which must be accompanied by a plant passport 2.1. Plants intended for planting, other than seeds, of the genera [. . .] Quercus L., [. . .] intended

for planting, and other than bulbs, corms, rhizomes, seeds and tubers.

Section II Plants, plant products and other objects which are potential carriers of harmful organisms of relevance for certain protected zones, and which must be accompanied by a plant passport valid for the appropriate zone when introduced into or

moved within that zone

1.2. Plants intended for planting, other than seeds, of [. . .] Quercus spp., other than Quercus suber [. . .] Part B Plants, plant products and other objects originating in territories, other than those

territories referred to in Part A

Section I Plants, plant products and other objects which are potential carriers of harmful organisms of relevance for the entire Community

2. Parts of plants, other than fruits and seeds, of [. . .] Quercus L.

6. Wood within the meaning of theﬁrst subparagraph of Article 2(2), where it:

(a) has been obtained in whole or part from one of the order, genera or species as described hereafter, except wood packaging material deﬁned in Annex IV, Part A, Section I, Point 2:

— Quercus L., including wood which has not kept its natural round surface, originating in the USA, except wood which meets the description referred to in (b) of CN code 4416 00 00 and where there is documented evidence that the wood has been processed or

manufactured using a heat treatment to achieve a minimum temperature of 176°C for 20 minutes

(b) meets one of the following descriptions laid down in Annex I, Part two to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87:

4403 91 00 - Oak wood (Quercus spp.) in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood, or roughly squared, other than treated with paint, stains, creosote or other preservatives

4407 91 - Oak wood (Quercus spp.), sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed, of a thickness exceeding 6 mm

(15)

3.3.3. Legislation addressing the organisms vectored by Arrhenodes minutus

(Directive 2000/29/EC)

Arrhenodes minutus is a vector of the quarantine pest Bretziella (Ceratocystis) fagacearum (Table 4).

3.4. Entry, establishment and spread in the EU

3.4.1. Host range

The pest attacks Quercus, Ulmus, Populus and Fagus. It might attack other hardwood tree species as well, as suggested by the fact that clusters of adults are found under loose bark of Acer negundo and Gleditsia triacanthos (Solomon, 1995).

3.4.2. Entry

The pest could enter into the EU territory with the following pathways:

•

Wood of Quercus, Ulmus, Fagus and Populus.

•

Plants for planting of Quercus, Ulmus, Fagus and Populus. There is uncertainty regarding this pathway, as it has not been described in the literature nor identified in any interception. For the following pathways, speci_{fic import requirements are currently specified in Annex III or} Annex IV of 2000/29/EC:

•

Wood of Quercus and Populus (speciﬁed treatments in Annex IV A.3 and 6)

•

Chips and wood waste of Quercus (speciﬁed treatments in Annex IV A.7.2)

•

Plants (with leaves) of Quercus and Populus (prohibited Annex III A.2 and 3)

•

Plants, wood and bark of Ulmus are regulated in Annex III and IV in relation to other pests (Agrilus planipennis and Candidatus Phytoplasma ulmi).

For all the other identiﬁed pathways (such as dormant Quercus plants without leaves, etc.), no import requirements are currently speciﬁed.5

There is one record of interception from 2005 of A. minutus in the Europhyt database, concerning a consignment of wood and bark of Quercus alba from USA into France.

Table 4: Organisms vectored by Arrhenodes minutus Council Directive 2000/29/EC

Annex I, Part A

Harmful organisms whose introduction into, and spread within, all member states shall be banned

Section I Harmful organisms not known to occur in any part of the community and relevant for the entire community

(c) Fungi

Species

1. Ceratocystis fagacearum

Is the pest able to enter into the EU territory? If yes, identify and list the pathways! Yes, the pest can enter via the wood and plants for planting pathways.

5 _{Quercus, Ulmus, Fagus and Populus are listed on Annex I of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 of 18}

December 2018 establishing a provisional list of high risk plants, plant products or other objects, within the meaning of Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 and a list of plants for which phytosanitary certiﬁcates are not required for introduction into

(16)

3.4.3. Establishment

3.4.3.1. EU distribution of main host plants

Host species of A. minutus (see Section3.4.1) are distributed throughout the EU territory. Figure 2 shows the distribution of Quercus spp. which are the only hosts for which more information is available (Buchanan, 1960; Sanborne, 1983).

3.4.3.2. Climatic conditions affecting establishment

Many parts of Canada and the USA where A. minutus is established (Section3.2.1 and Figure1) have climatic conditions comparable to those occurring at least in parts of the EU.

Is the pest able to become established in the EU territory?

Yes, A. minutus could establish in the EU territory as the climatic conditions in parts of the EU territory are comparable to those of its native range, and potential host plants are widespread.

Figure 2: Left panel: Relative probability of presence (RPP) of the genus Quercus (based on data from the species: Quercus cerris, Q. petraea, Q. robur, Q. pubescens, Q. rubra, Q. frainetto, Q. ilex, Q. suber, Q. trojana, Q. virgiliana, Q. palustris, Q. pedunculi_{ﬂora, Q. coccifera, Q.} vulcanica, Q. faginea, Q. pyrenaica, Q. canariensis, Q. macrolepis, Q. dalechampii, Q. congesta, Quercus x streimii, Q. alnifolia) in Europe, mapped at 100 km2 _{resolution. The}

underlying data are from European-wide forest monitoring data sets and from national forestry inventories based on standard observation plots measuring in the order of hundreds m². RPP represents the probability of ﬁnding at least one individual of the taxon in a standard plot placed randomly within the grid cell. For details, see Appendix A (courtesy of JRC, 2017). Right panel: Trustability of RPP. This metric expresses the strength of the underlying information in each grid cell and varies according to the spatial variability in forestry inventories. The colour scale of the trustability map is obtained by plotting the cumulative probabilities (0–1) of the underlying index (for details, see AppendixA)

(17)

3.4.4. Spread

There are no data of its dispersal or spread ability. It is expected that the insect could probably spread by _{ﬂight, although ability to ﬂy is not known. Long distance spread could occur through the} movement of wood and plants for planting. Hitchhiking in vehicles is probably also possible, although not reported.

3.5. Impacts

Introduction of A. minutus in the EU is likely to have an economic impact on the EU as it is considered a signiﬁcant pest in the USA. Substantial economic damage to timber growing for wood products has been reported from the USA (Solomon, 1995). Particular losses have been reported for lumber due to presence of wormholes made by feeding larvae (Solomon, 1995). Plants for planting could be a pathway (see Section 3.4.2), but so far no damage to plants for planting has been reported.

It is also mentioned that it can vector the oak wilt pathogen, Bretziella fagacearum, which is a severe disease of oak trees in the USA (EFSA, 2018a; Solomon, 1995).

3.6. Availability and limits of mitigation measures

3.6.1. Identi

ﬁcation of additional measures

Phytosanitary measures are currently applied to the main host plant species (see Section3.3). As an additional pre-entry measure for main host plant species, it could be considered growing plants in isolation. This measure has limitations as it is relevant mainly for smaller plants.

3.6.1.1. Additional control measures

For wood and plants for planting from host species/genera that are not regulated (Fagus spp.) potential additional control measures may be required (Table 5).

Are there measures available to prevent the entry into, establishment within or spread of the pest within the EU such that the risk becomes mitigated?

Yes, measures to prevent entry are shown in Sections3.3and in3.6.1.

RNQPs: Are there measures available to prevent pest presence on plants for planting such that the risk becomes mitigated?

Yes, plants for planting originating from pest free areas.

Is the pest able to spread within the EU territory following establishment? How?

Yes, the pest is able to spread in the EU via wood and plants for planting, as well as byﬂight.

RNQPs: Is spread mainly via speciﬁc plants for planting, rather than via natural spread or via movement of plant products or other objects?

No, plants for planting are not the main means for spread.

Would the pests’ introduction have an economic or environmental impact on the EU territory? Yes, economic impact on timber production could be expected.

RNQPs: Does the presence of the pest on plants for planting have an economic impact, as regards the intended use of those plants for planting?6

Yes, the presence of the pest on plants for planting may have an economic impact, as regards the intended use of those plants for planting.

(18)

3.6.1.2. Additional supporting measures

For wood and plants for planting from host species/genera that are not regulated (Fagus spp.), potential additional supporting measures may be required (Table 6).

Table 5: Selected control measures (a full list is available in EFSA PLH Panel, 2018a,b) for pest entry/establishment/spread/impact in relation to currently unregulated hosts and pathways. Control measures are measures that have a direct effect on pest abundance

Information sheet title (with

hyperlink to information sheet if available)

Control measure summary

Risk component (entry/ establishment/spread/ impact)

Growing plants in isolation

Description of possible exclusion conditions that could be implemented to isolate the crop from pests and if

applicable relevant vectors. E.g. a dedicated structure such as glass or plastic greenhouses

Entry

Chemical treatments on consignments or during processing

Use of chemical compounds that may be applied to plants or to plant products after harvest, during process or packaging operations and storage

The treatments addressed in this information sheet are: a) fumigation; b) spraying/dipping pesticides; c) surface disinfectants; d) process additives; e) protective compounds

Entry

Roguing and pruning Removal of infested plant parts only, without affecting the viability of the plant

Establishment and spread

Heat and cold trea tments

Controlled temperature treatments aimed to kill or inactivate pests without causing any unacceptable prejudice to the treated material itself. The measures addressed in this information sheet are: autoclaving; steam; hot water; hot air; cold treatment

Entry

Conditions of tra nsport

Speciﬁc requirements for mode and timing of transport of commodities to prevent escape of the pest and/or contamination

a) physical protection of consignment

Entry/establishment

Table 6: Selected supporting measures (a full list is available in EFSA PLH Panel, 2018a,b) in relation to currently unregulated hosts and pathways. Supporting measures are organisational measures or procedures supporting the choice of appropriate risk reduction options that do not directly affect pest abundance

Information sheet title (with hyperlink to information sheet if available)

Supporting measure summary

Inspection and trapping Inspection is deﬁned as the ofﬁcial visual examination of plants, plant products or other regulated articles to determine if pests are present or to determine compliance with phytosanitary regulations (ISPM 5)

The effectiveness of sampling and subsequent inspection to detect pests may be enhanced by including trapping and luring techniques

Entry and spread

Laboratory testing Examination, other than visual, to determine if pests are present using ofﬁcial diagnostic protocols. Diagnostic protocols describe the minimum requirements for reliable diagnosis of regulated pests

(19)

3.6.1.3. Biological or technical factors limiting the effectiveness of measures to prevent the entry, establishment and spread of the pest

The concealed life history of these beetles inside the wood does not make detection easy.

3.7. Uncertainty

•

The pest’s ability to spread by ﬂight or hitchhiking is not known.

•

Although A. minutus is known to attack living trees, its capacity to colonise plants for planting is not documented.

4. Conclusions

Arrhenodes minutus meets all the criteria assessed by EFSA for consideration as potential Union quarantine pest (Table 7). The criteria for considering A. minutus as potential Union RNQPs are not met since it is not known to be present in the EU.

Information sheet title (with hyperlink to information sheet if available)

Supporting measure summary

Sampling According to ISPM 31, it is usually not feasible to inspect entire consignments, so phytosanitary inspection is performed mainly on samples obtained from a consignment. It is noted that the sampling concepts presented in this standard may also apply to other phytosanitary procedures, notably selection of units for testing

For inspection, testing and/or surveillance purposes the sample may be taken according to a statistically based or a non-statistical sampling methodology

Entry

Phytosanitary certiﬁcate and plant passport

An official paper document or its official electronic equivalent, consistent with the model certificates of the IPPC, attesting that a consignment meets phytosanitary import requirements (ISPM 5)

a) export certiﬁcate (import) b) plant passport (EU internal trade)

Entry and spread

Table 7: The Panel’s conclusions on the pest categorisation criteria deﬁned in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in theﬁrst column)

Criterion of pest categorisation Panel’s conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/ 2031 regarding Union quarantine pest

Panel’s conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union regulated non-quarantine pest

Key uncertainties

Identity of the pest (Section3.1)

A. minutus is a clearly deﬁned insect species in the order Coleoptera, family Brentidae

None

Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory (Section3.2)

A. minutus is not known to occur in the EU territory. It is only known from North America

None

Regulatory status (Section3.3)

A. minutus is not present in the EU. It is listed on Annex IAI of Council Directive 2000/29/EC

(20)

References

Arnett Jr H, 1968. The Beetles of the United States: A manual for identiﬁcation. The American Entomological Institute, 5950 Warren Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. 1112 pp.

Arnett RH, Frank JH, Thomas MC and Skelley PE, 2002. American Beetles, Volume II: Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through Curculionoidea. CRC press, FL, USA.

Bossard M, Feranec J, Otahel J, 2000. CORINE land cover technical guide - Addendum 2000. Tech. Rep. 40, European Environment Agency.https://www.eea.europa.eu/ds_resolveuid/032TFUPGVR

Buchanan WD, 1960. Biology of the oak timberworm, Arrhenodes minutus. Journal of Economic Entomology 53, 510–513.

B€uttner G, Kosztra B, Maucha G and Pataki R, 2012. Implementation and achievements of CLC2006. Tech. rep., European Environment Agency. Available online:http://www.eea.europa.eu/ds_resolveuid/GQ4JECM8TB

Chirici G, Bertini R, Travaglini D, Puletti N and Chiavetta U, 2011a. The common NFI database. In: Chirici G, Winter S, McRoberts RE (eds.). National Forest Inventories: Contributions to Forest Biodiversity Assessments. Springer, Berlin. pp. 99–119.

Chirici G, McRoberts RE, Winter S, Barbati A, Br€andli U-B, Abegg M, Beranova J, Rondeux J, Bertini R, Alberdi Asensio I and Condes S, 2011b. Harmonization tests. In: Chirici G, Winter S, McRoberts RE (eds.). National Forest Inventories: Contributions to Forest Biodiversity Assessments. Springer, Berlin, pp. 121–190.

Criterion of pest categorisation Panel’s conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/ 2031 regarding Union quarantine pest

Panel’s conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union regulated non-quarantine pest

Key uncertainties Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory (Section3.4)

A. minutus has the potential to enter in wood and plants for planting, and become established and spread within the EU

A. minutus has the potential to enter in plants for planting and become established and spread within the EU

The pest’s ability to spread (e.g.ﬂight capacity and hitchhiking) is not known

Although A. minutus is known to attack living trees, its capacity to colonise plants for planting is not documented Potential for consequences in the EU territory (Section3.5) Introduction of A. minutus would have an economic impact as it damages plants growing for wood and it is a vector of oak wilt pathogen

A. minutus is associated with plants for planting (though it is not the main pathway) and is

expected to have an impact on the use of those plants for planting

Although A. minutus is known to attack living trees, its capacity to colonise plants for planting is not documented Available

measures (Section3.6)

There are measures available to prevent the entry of A. minutus in the EU, which are described in Council Directive 2000/29/EC and in section 3.6

Growing of plants in isolation or in pest free area or place of

production

Although A. minutus is known to attack living trees, its capacity to colonise plants for planting is not documented Conclusion on pest categorisation (Section4)

A. minutus meets all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a potential quarantine pest

A. minutus does not meet all criteria assessed by EFSA above for consideration as a potential regulated non-quarantine pest as it is not present in EU None Aspects of assessment to focus on/ scenarios to address in future if appropriate

(21)

EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Jeger M, Bragard C, Cafﬁer D, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Gilioli G, Gregoire J-C, Jaques Miret JA, MacLeod A, Navajas Navarro M, Niere B, Parnell S, Potting R, Rafoss T, Rossi V, Urek G, Van Bruggen A, Van der Werf W, West J, Winter S, Boberg J, Gonthier P and Pautasso M, 2018a. Scientiﬁc Opinion on the pest categorisation of Bretziella fagacearum. EFSA Journal 2018;16(2):5185, 30 pp.https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5185

EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Jeger M, Bragard C, Cafﬁer D, Candresse T, Chatzivassiliou E, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Gregoire J-C, Jaques Miret JA, MacLeod A, Navajas Navarro M, Niere B, Parnell S, Potting R, Rafoss T, Rossi V, Urek G, Van Bruggen A, Van Der Werf W, West J, Winter S, Hart A, Schans J, Schrader G, Suffert M, Kertesz V, Kozelska S, Mannino MR, Mosbach-Schulz O, Pautasso M, Stancanelli G, Tramontini S, Vos S and Gilioli G, 2018b Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment. EFSA Journal 2018;16(8):5350, 86 pp.

https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5350

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 1995. ISPM (International standards for phytosanitary measures) No 4. Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. Available online:https:// www.ippc.int/en/publications/614/

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2004. ISPM (International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures) 21—Pest risk analysis of regulated non-quarantine pests. FAO, Rome, 30 pp. Available online:https:// www.ippc.int/sites/default/files/documents//1323945746_ISPM_21_2004_En_2011-11-29_Refor.pdf

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2013. ISPM (International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures) 11—Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests. FAO, Rome, 36 pp. Available online:

https://www.ippc.int/sites/default/files/documents/20140512/ispm_11_2013_en_2014-04-30_201405121523-494.65%20KB.pdf

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2017. ISPM (International standards for phytosanitary measures) No 5. Glossary of phytosanitary terms. Available online: https://www.ippc.int/en/ publications/622/

GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility), online. Available online:https://www.gbif.org/

Hiederer R, Houston Durrant T, Granke O, Lambotte M, Lorenz M, Mignon B and Mues V, 2007. Forest focus monitoring database system - validation methodology. Vol. EUR 23020 EN of EUR – Scientific and Technical Research. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.https://doi.org/10.2788/51364

Hiederer R, Houston Durrant T and Micheli E, 2011. Evaluation of BioSoil demonstration project - Soil data analysis. Vol. 24729 of EUR - Scientiﬁc and Technical Research. Publications Ofﬁce of the European Union.

https://doi.org/10.2788/56105

Houston Durrant T and Hiederer R, 2009. Applying quality assurance procedures to environmental monitoring data: a case study. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 11, 774–781.

Houston Durrant T, San-Miguel-Ayanz J, Schulte E and Suarez Meyer A, 2011. Evaluation of BioSoil demonstration project: forest biodiversity - Analysis of biodiversity module. Vol. 24777 of EUR – Scientiﬁc and Technical Research. Publications Ofﬁce of the European Union.https://doi.org/10.2788/84823

de Rigo D, 2012.Semantic Array Programming for environmental modelling: application of the Mastrave library. In: Seppelt R, Voinov AA, Lange S, Bankamp D (eds.). International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) 2012 International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software - Managing Resources of a Limited Planet: pathways and Visions under Uncertainty, Sixth Biennial Meeting. pp. 1167–1176.

de Rigo D, Caudullo G, Busetto L and San-Miguel-Ayanz J, 2014. Supporting EFSA assessment of the EU environmental suitability for exotic forestry pests: ﬁnal report. EFSA Supporting Publications 2014;11(3):EN-434.

de Rigo D, Caudullo G, Houston Durrant T and San-Miguel-Ayanz J, 2016. The European Atlas of Forest Tree Species: modelling, data and information on forest tree species. In: San-Miguel-Ayanz J, de Rigo D, Caudullo G, Houston Durrant T, Mauri A (eds.). European Atlas of Forest Tree Species. Publ. Off. EU, Luxembourg, pp. e01aa69+.

de Rigo D, Caudullo G, San-Miguel-Ayanz J and Barredo JI, 2017. Robust modelling of the impacts of climate change on the habitat suitability of forest tree species. Publication Ofﬁce of the European Union, 58 pp. Sanborne M, 1983.Some observations on the behaviour of Arrhenodes minutus (Drury)(Coleoptera: Brentidae).

The Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 106–113.

San-Miguel-Ayanz J, 2016. The European Union Forest Strategy and the Forest Information System for Europe. In: San-Miguel-Ayanz J, de Rigo D, Caudullo G, Houston Durrant T, Mauri A (eds.). European Atlas of Forest Tree Species. Publ. Off. EU, Luxembourg, pp. e012228+.

San-Miguel-Ayanz J, de Rigo D, Caudullo G, Houston Durrant T and Mauri A (eds), 2016. European Atlas of Forest Tree Species. Publication Ofﬁce of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Solomon JD, 1995. Guide to insect borers in North American broadleaf trees and shrubs. Agriculture Handbook (Washington), (AH-706).

Thomas MC. 1996. The primitive weevils of Florida (Coleoptera: Brentidae: Brentinae). Entomology circular No. 375. Fla. Dept. Agric. & Consumer Services Division of Plant industry.

(22)

Abbreviations

CLC Corine Land Cover

C-SMFA constrained spatial multi-scale frequency analysis DG SANTE Directorate General for Health and Food Safety

EUFGIS European Information System on Forest Genetic Resources FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GBIF Global Biodiversity Information Facility GD2 Georeferenced Data on Genetic Diversity IPPC International Plant Protection Convention

ISPM International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures MS Member State

PLH EFSA Panel on Plant Health PZ protected zone

RNQP regulated non-quarantine pest RPP relative probability of presence

TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ToR Terms of Reference

Glossary

Containment (of a pest) Application of phytosanitary measures in and around an infested area to prevent spread of a pest (FAO, 1995, 2017)

Control (of a pest) Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest population (FAO, 1995, 2017)

Entry (of a pest) Movement of a pest into an area where it is not yet present, or present but not widely distributed and being ofﬁcially controlled (FAO, 2017)

Eradication (of a pest) Application of phytosanitary measures to eliminate a pest from an area (FAO, 2017)

Establishment (of a pest) Perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area after entry (FAO, 2017)

Impact (of a pest) The impact of the pest on the crop output and quality and on the environment in the occupied spatial units

Introduction (of a pest) The entry of a pest resulting in its establishment (FAO, 2017)

Measures Control (of a pest) is de_{ﬁned in ISPM 5 (FAO 2017) as “Suppression,} containment or eradication of a pest population” (FAO, 1995). Control measures are measures that have a direct effect on pest abundance. Supporting measures are organisational measures or procedures supporting the choice of appropriate Risk Reduction Options that do not directly affect pest abundance

Pathway Any means that allows the entry or spread of a pest (FAO, 2017) Phytosanitary measures Any legislation, regulation or ofﬁcial procedure having the purpose to

prevent the introduction or spread of quarantine pests, or to limit the economic impact of regulated non-quarantine pests (FAO, 2017) Protected zones (PZ) A Protected zone is an area recognised at EU level to be free from a

harmful organism, which is established in one or more other parts of the Union

Quarantine pest A pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being ofﬁcially controlled (FAO, 2017)

Regulated non-quarantine pest A non-quarantine pest whose presence in plants for planting affects the intended use of those plants with an economically unacceptable impact and which is therefore regulated within the territory of the importing contracting party (FAO, 2017)

(23)

Risk reduction option (RRO) A measure acting on pest introduction and/or pest spread and/or the magnitude of the biological impact of the pest should the pest be present. A RRO may become a phytosanitary measure, action or procedure according to the decision of the risk manager

Spread (of a pest) Expansion of the geographical distribution of a pest within an area (FAO 2017)

(24)

Appendix A

– Methodological notes on Figure

2

The relative probability of presence (RPP) reported here for Quercus spp. in Figure2 and in the European Atlas of Forest Tree Species (de Rigo et al., 2016; San-Miguel-Ayanz et al., 2016) is the probability of that genus to occur in a given spatial unit (de Rigo et al., 2017). In forestry, such a probability for a single taxon is called ‘relative’. The maps of RPP are produced by means of the constrained spatial multi-scale frequency analysis (C-SMFA) (de Rigo et al., 2014, 2017) of species presence data reported in geolocated plots by different forest inventories.

A.1.

Geolocated plot databases

The RPP models rely onﬁve geodatabases that provide presence/absence data for tree species and genera: four European-wide forest monitoring data sets and a harmonised collection of records from national forest inventories (de Rigo et al., 2014, 2016, 2017). The databases report observations made inside geolocalised sample plots positioned in a forested area, but do not provide information about the plot size or consistent quantitative information about the recorded species beyond presence/absence.

The harmonisation of these data sets was performed within the research project at the origin of the European Atlas of Forest Tree Species (de Rigo et al., 2016; Ayanz, 2016; San-Miguel-Ayanz et al., 2016). Given the heterogeneity of strategies of_{ﬁeld sampling design and establishment of} sampling plots in the various national forest inventories (Chirici et al., 2011a,b), and also given legal constraints, the information from the original data sources was harmonised to refer to an INSPIRE compliant geospatial grid, with a spatial resolution of 1 km2 pixel size, using the ETRS89 Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area as geospatial projection (EPSG: 3035, http://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/ etrs89-etrs-laea/).

A.1.1.

European National Forestry Inventories database

This data set was derived from National Forest Inventory data and provides information on the presence/absence of forest tree species in approximately 375,000 sample points with a spatial resolution of 1 km²/pixel, covering 21 European countries (de Rigo et al., 2014, 2016).

A.1.2.

Forest Focus/Monitoring data set

This project is a Community scheme for harmonised long-term monitoring of air pollution effects in European forest ecosystems, normed by EC Regulation No 2152/20037. Under this scheme, the monitoring is carried out by participating countries on the basis of a systematic network of observation points (Level I) and a network of observation plots for intensive and continuous monitoring (Level II). For managing the data, the JRC implemented a Forest Focus Monitoring Database System, from which the data used in this project were taken (Hiederer et al., 2007; Houston Durrant and Hiederer, 2009). The complete Forest Focus data set covers 30 European Countries with more than 8,600 sample points.

A.1.3.

BioSoil data set

This data set was produced by one of a number of demonstration studies performed in response to the ‘Forest Focus’ Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 mentioned above. The aim of the BioSoil project was to provide harmonised soil and forest biodiversity data. It comprised two modules: a Soil Module (Hiederer et al., 2011) and a Biodiversity Module (Houston Durrant et al., 2011). The data set used in the C-SMFA RPP model came from the Biodiversity module, in which plant species from both the tree layer and the ground vegetation layer were recorded for more than 3,300 sample points in 19 European Countries.

A.1.4.

European Information System on Forest Genetic Resources

(EUFGIS)

EUFGIS (http://portal.eufgis.org) is a smaller geodatabase providing information on tree species composition in over 3,200 forest plots in 34 European countries. The plots are part of a network of

7

Council of the European Union, 2003. Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus). Ofﬁcial Journal of the European Union, 46, L 324, pp. 1–8.

Pest categorisation of arrhenodes minutus